On 05/12/2023 13:14, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:28:56AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
>> index 1d40d794f5e4..eb1ef84e1dbb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>> #include <clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h>
>>
>> #include <linux/acpi.h>
>> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
>> #include <linux/clocksource.h>
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>> #include <linux/perf/arm_pmu.h>
>> @@ -294,9 +295,20 @@ static const struct attribute_group armv8_pmuv3_events_attr_group = {
>> .is_visible = armv8pmu_event_attr_is_visible,
>> };
>>
>> +#define THRESHOLD_LOW 2
>> +#define THRESHOLD_HIGH 13
>> +#define THRESHOLD_CNT 14
>> +#define THRESHOLD_CMP_LO 15
>> +#define THRESHOLD_CMP_HI 16
>
> Do you think THWIDTH might extend beyond 12 bits in future? If so, it might
> be worth juggling these bits around a bit so it's not sandwiched between
> 'rdpmc' and 'threshold_compare'. I defer to your judgement, however.
>
It's possible, both PMMIR.THWIDTH and PMEVTYPER.TH currently have unused
bits above them. I can easily move threshold to the end, I suppose that
covers us at least until someone adds a new field above that.
>> PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(event, "config:0-15");
>> PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(long, "config1:0");
>> PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(rdpmc, "config1:1");
>> +PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(threshold, "config1:" __stringify(THRESHOLD_LOW) "-"
>> + __stringify(THRESHOLD_HIGH));
>> +PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(threshold_compare, "config1:" __stringify(THRESHOLD_CMP_LO) "-"
>> + __stringify(THRESHOLD_CMP_HI));
>> +PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(threshold_count, "config1:" __stringify(THRESHOLD_CNT));
>>
>> static int sysctl_perf_user_access __read_mostly;
>>
>> @@ -310,10 +322,33 @@ static inline bool armv8pmu_event_want_user_access(struct perf_event *event)
>> return event->attr.config1 & 0x2;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline u32 armv8pmu_event_threshold(struct perf_event_attr *attr)
>> +{
>> + return FIELD_GET(GENMASK(THRESHOLD_HIGH, THRESHOLD_LOW), attr->config1);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline u8 armv8pmu_event_threshold_control(struct perf_event_attr *attr)
>
> You can drop the 'inline's for these functions (and, in fact, this whole
> file could do with that cleanup :)
>
Will do.
>> +{
>> + u8 th_compare = FIELD_GET(GENMASK(THRESHOLD_CMP_HI, THRESHOLD_CMP_LO),
>> + attr->config1);
>> + u8 th_count = FIELD_GET(BIT(THRESHOLD_CNT), attr->config1);
>
> I think this is correct, but you might want to look at how we handle this
> in the SPE driver as I think it ends up looking cleaner and makes it pretty
> obvious which bits correspond to the user ABI (i.e. config fields) and which
> bits are part of architectural registers. I'm not saying you have to do it
> that way, but please take a look if you haven't already.
>
Yeah I could take the GEN_PMU_FORMAT_ATTR() etc macros out of there and
re-use them here too. And also for the other existing configs in
arm_pmuv3.c.
>> + /*
>> + * The count bit is always the bottom bit of the full control field, and
>> + * the comparison is the upper two bits, but it's not explicitly
>> + * labelled in the Arm ARM. For the Perf interface we split it into two
>> + * fields, so reconstruct it here.
>> + */
>> + return (th_compare << 1) | th_count;
>> +}
>> +
>> static struct attribute *armv8_pmuv3_format_attrs[] = {
>> &format_attr_event.attr,
>> &format_attr_long.attr,
>> &format_attr_rdpmc.attr,
>> + &format_attr_threshold.attr,
>> + &format_attr_threshold_compare.attr,
>> + &format_attr_threshold_count.attr,
>> NULL,
>> };
>>
>> @@ -365,10 +400,38 @@ static ssize_t bus_width_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>>
>> static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(bus_width);
>>
>> +static u32 threshold_max(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * PMMIR.THWIDTH is readable and non-zero on aarch32, but it would be
>> + * impossible to write the threshold in the upper 32 bits of PMEVTYPER.
>> + */
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The largest value that can be written to PMEVTYPER<n>_EL0.TH is
>> + * (2 ^ PMMIR.THWIDTH) - 1.
>> + */
>> + return (1 << FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_THWIDTH, cpu_pmu->reg_pmmir)) - 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static ssize_t threshold_max_show(struct device *dev,
>> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *page)
>> +{
>> + struct pmu *pmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> + struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu = container_of(pmu, struct arm_pmu, pmu);
>> +
>> + return sysfs_emit(page, "0x%08x\n", threshold_max(cpu_pmu));
>> +}
>> +
>> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(threshold_max);
>> +
>> static struct attribute *armv8_pmuv3_caps_attrs[] = {
>> &dev_attr_slots.attr,
>> &dev_attr_bus_slots.attr,
>> &dev_attr_bus_width.attr,
>> + &dev_attr_threshold_max.attr,
>> NULL,
>> };
>>
>> @@ -552,7 +615,7 @@ static void armv8pmu_write_counter(struct perf_event *event, u64 value)
>> armv8pmu_write_hw_counter(event, value);
>> }
>>
>> -static inline void armv8pmu_write_evtype(int idx, u32 val)
>> +static inline void armv8pmu_write_evtype(int idx, unsigned long val)
>> {
>> u32 counter = ARMV8_IDX_TO_COUNTER(idx);
>> unsigned long mask = ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT |
>> @@ -921,6 +984,10 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event,
>> struct perf_event_attr *attr)
>> {
>> unsigned long config_base = 0;
>> + struct perf_event *perf_event = container_of(attr, struct perf_event,
>> + attr);
>> + struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu = to_arm_pmu(perf_event->pmu);
>> + u32 th, th_max;
>>
>> if (attr->exclude_idle)
>> return -EPERM;
>> @@ -952,6 +1019,21 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event,
>> if (attr->exclude_user)
>> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Insert event counting threshold (FEAT_PMUv3_TH) values. If
>> + * FEAT_PMUv3_TH isn't implemented, then THWIDTH (threshold_max) will be
>> + * 0 and no values will be written.
>> + */
>> + th_max = threshold_max(cpu_pmu);
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) && th_max) {
>
> Why is the IS_ENABLED() check needed here?
>
The FIELD_PREP() below would cause a compilation error on arm32 because
TH and TC are above 32 bits. I can add a comment.
>> + th = min(armv8pmu_event_threshold(attr), th_max);
>> + if (th) {
>
> Why is it useful to take the minimum here? If userspace asks for a value
> bigger than the maximum support threshold, shouldn't we return an error
> rather than silently clamp it?
>
I think it probably was just so I didn't have to think about what would
happen when the value varied between cores.
But you're right, it looks like I can add a validation function to
struct arm_pmu and call it from armpmu_event_init(). armpmu->map_event()
and armpmu->set_event_filter() are already called from there so I think
the validation could technically be added to one of those, but that's
probably a bit hacky. I don't know if you have any preference for where
the threshold validation should happen?
>> + config_base |= FIELD_PREP(ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_TH, th);
>> + config_base |= FIELD_PREP(ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_TC,
>> + armv8pmu_event_threshold_control(attr));
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * Install the filter into config_base as this is used to
>> * construct the event type.
>> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmuv3.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmuv3.h
>> index ddd1fec86739..ccbc0f9a74d8 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmuv3.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmuv3.h
>> @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@
>> #define ARMV8_PMU_BUS_SLOTS_MASK 0xff
>> #define ARMV8_PMU_BUS_WIDTH_SHIFT 16
>> #define ARMV8_PMU_BUS_WIDTH_MASK 0xf
>> +#define ARMV8_PMU_THWIDTH GENMASK(23, 20)
>
> It's a bit messy having a mixture of GENMASK and MASK/SHIFT pairs. Please
> can you either update what's there to use GENMASK, or use SHIFT/MASK for the
> new addition?
>
> Will
>
Yep will do. Thanks for the review.
James
